Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [t93] Thelema publishing

Expand Messages
  • John M.
    ... What I m trying to find out is what exactly the conflict is about. From what I gather there seems to be two things going on: first, an issue about owning
    Message 1 of 36 , Apr 14 10:09 AM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      On Apr 14, 2008, at 6:29 AM, tom chaudoin wrote:

      >
      >
      > "John M." <madziarczyk@...> wrote:
      >>
      >> # It stands to reason that any effective revision which
      >> # might draw membership on a large scale would be a
      >> # potential percieved threat by cOTO.
      >>
      >> especially if it uses the same name or maintains that
      >> it offers the same (sex magick/initiation) technology.
      >> not only perceived, either, but supportably actual.
      >> SOTO, TOTO and OTOA were all clear attempts to enter
      >> the stream, the first two (Motta, Grant) cut down in
      >> the courts, the last (Bertiaux) sufficiently different
      >> as to sustain himself and spread out in Chicago by
      >> my evaluation (attempting the merger of Gnosticism,
      >> Lovecraft, Voodoo/hoodoo, and Thelema in a strange
      >> compound alike to Grant's (where Voodoo/hoodoo/Africa
      >> may switch out somewhat with Tantra/India).
      >>
      >>
      >
      > Explain to me again, and I'm really interested in hearing it, what
      > exactly the legal system of the United States or any other country
      > has to do with determining the legitimacy of initiatory
      > organizations?
      >
      > In so much as an intitiatory org applies for tax exemption in this
      > country and conferred the status of a non-profit org. It is by
      > default relying on a temporal government for recognition and
      > status. Also, religions are, for the most part, sanctioned or not,
      > by the states within which their members dwell. USA has very loose
      > rules about this compared to other countires, but there it is.
      >
      > Also the term 'legitimacy' seems digressive. What we are
      > disscussing the veracity of religious organizations being able to
      > maintain what amounts to 'ecclesiastical copyright' which, in the
      > strictest language of the ORIGINAL frame of the First Amendment, is
      > prohibited.
      >
      > Publishing is more to the pragmatic point. "Legitimacy" is an over
      > generalization.
      >
      >
      >
      > Pax,
      >
      > Tom
      >

      What I'm trying to find out is what exactly the conflict is about.
      From what I gather there seems to be two things going on: first, an
      issue about owning copyrights to rituals combined with things like
      claiming to be 'THE' OTO, using the OTO lamen, publishing using the
      name 'Equinox' (even though that historically was not related to the
      OTO), and secondly the validity of these other groups as religious
      and initiatory organizations.

      I agree that they're two different questions, but the attitude that
      I've seen here and elsewhere is that having the U.S. OTO win out over
      the Typhonians and over Motta in court with regards to the first
      questions entitles them to say that they've also won in relation to
      whether they're "Right" with regards to initiation, ritual, and
      understanding of Thelema.

      By saying that the Typhonians aren't the 'Real' OTO people strongly
      imply, and often go right out and say, that their understanding of
      Crowley and of Thelema is inferior to that of the U.S. OTO.

      If SOTOs publications had been more widely circulated and his group
      had continued in an organized fashion the charge would probably be
      applied to them as well.

      I think that by the fruits you shall know them.

      The first point seems to be related to the notion of religious 'Trade
      Secrets', something that pops up with Scientology Tech, which is
      composed of the auditing processes. Avatar, a Scientology offshoot,
      was sued for using Scientology technical processes without
      permission, and Avatar in turn sued another person for using Avatar's
      ideas without permission.

      But since all three groups, Grant, the Agape lodge, and Motta, all
      came from the same source it's not quite like they just ripped off
      the OTO's rituals and packaged them as their own.

      John M.
    • 333
      namaste Sister colette, colette: # # # THEN what the hell do those [planes] of # # # consciousness need with your little ignorant # # # petty shit concerning
      Message 36 of 36 , Jul 13, 2008
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        namaste Sister colette,

        colette:
        #>#># THEN what the hell do those [planes] of
        #>#># consciousness need with your little ignorant
        #>#># petty shit concerning [monetary] compensation
        #>#># and the value of your stinking laws altogether?

        333:
        #>#> technology is applied to reach those states of
        #>#> consciousness.

        #>#> some of these may be made illegal
        #>#> or at least unavailable (as by preserving secrecy
        #>#> or privacy). it is these (as in "We don't need no"?)
        #>#> "stinking laws" that make possible the existence
        #>#> of the (c)OTO in its current configuration.

        colette:
        #># I am in complete agreement that such organizations as the
        #># OTO should exist but as I always rail about concerning
        #># Masonic lodges they get filled with Barney Rubble/Fred
        #># Flinstone or Ed Norton/Ralph Cramden types, that only
        #># join the organization for the "status" it offers them
        #># in the community.

        333:
        #> it isn't our business why they join.
        #
        #># They have absolutely no concerns for actually doing
        #># the work

        this is a very common criticism (that 'the work' is not
        'actually being done', or is misunderstood, etc.). its
        form is sometimes solidified in an attempt to confirm.

        #> there is no necessary work to do in social clubs like OTO.
        #> this is particularly true in the first 3 degrees, which
        #> should be open and available to all, by my reckoning.

        "colette" <ksheri3@...>:
        # IT IS OUR BUSINESS!
        # We, as a group of like minded indivuals that pursue deviant sciences
        # as a means of obtaining rational truths to what we all suffer
        # CERTAINLY REQUIRES OUR OBSERVATION AND OUR DILLIGENCE in maintaing
        # our pursiut.

        we aren't necessarily like-minded. that displays itself well here,
        as, ostensibly, thelemites, with the vitality of dissent and
        disagreement that is present. I rail about anti-Judaism and Jake
        kindly tells me i'm off-base. Sandi and tom dispute about the din.
        in the OTO, an initiatic kinship org, this is even LESS like-minded
        on the whole, since any rogue might sneak in without our knowing
        them for what they are. that's the nature of the instruction:
        how to engage all manner of individual in a setting of dedication.

        # LET THEM FREAKIN' JOIN BUT LET THEM KNOW THAT WHAT THEY JOIN
        # IS IN NO WAY NEAR TO WHAT THEY HALLUCINATE IT IS AND/OR WILL BE.

        who can say? maybe we're all hallucinating.

        # If they want to play with loaded weapons then they should be
        # aware of the consequiences of playing with a loaded weapon.

        is it so very dangerous to become initiated?

        # Suicide is a common result and I have no desire to allow
        # some needless punks to walk up to me and declare how
        # powerful they are just to put a loaded weapon to their
        # heads and pull the trigger. ....

        it isn't suicide if accidental death occurs, and it is very
        unlikely that death or even anything serious will occur due
        to being initiated into the OTO. I'd be more worried about
        becoming wrapped up in zealous fanaticism, frankly.

        # IT MAY CERTAINLY NOT BE OUR CHOICE TO JOIN SUCH GROUPS but
        # it is the repsponsibility of those stinkin' scum called
        # "youth" to get their heads out of the gutter and that
        # MTV crap....

        their will is not mine. they will do what they do, and this
        may intersect the orbit of my actions. I do not try to make
        the new and ignorant responsible for being wise. in the
        case that i am a thelemite i will barrel over them with
        my momentum and barely notice as they fly aside. their
        gutter and MTV crap will avail them little.

        # How can you get so heavy?

        that's how my life is. :)

        # But I guess you, as an adminstrator of the
        # community, have a right and an obligation to maintain.

        I'm hardly an administrator in the Thelemic community
        except as regards peripheral communications on theoretical
        and historical topics. you may wish to consider the real
        difference between administration of actual on-the-ground
        bodies and the sociopolitics of instruction and ritualizing
        that really involved people engage and the pittance of
        volunteer effort which is moderating an old forum. I've
        only visited with these administrators, learned from
        them occasionally, and found some of them to be inspiring.

        # HERE WE [GO?] ...
        #
        #> you are free to select differently, refuse to initiate
        #> any but those whom you deem worthy of your
        #> attentions/service, should you have that ability
        #> or authority.

        which authority, i should add, i do not have.

        # completely understood, totally reasonable BUT WHAT THE HELL IS[:]
        #
        #> Brother Heidrick and others were trying to install Liber MCLI.
        #
        # wait a minute, I'm not that familiar with the multitude of
        # ceremonials that the OTO has in it's repetroire.

        it really isn't a ceremony or rite, but a guidebook of
        instruction for those interested in the OTO. its fair
        content as a Crowley-based Thelemic preparation ought
        be analyzed by the interested. what each portion of
        the curriculum and practice there outlined will bring
        to the interested student should be explained by those
        who seek to promote it. I could do it myself, but i
        have not myself taken it up, not being a Crowleyan,
        just finding Crowley's to be an interesting example of
        will-based philosophy set in a religiomystical mode. I
        have occasionally experimented with others in doing
        a bit of what is recommended there to understand it.

        # I'll have to review it when I can find it.
        # {MODERATOR: googling Liber MCLI brought me this:
        # http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/lib1151.htm }

        it is online for you to examine. it isn't very long.
        I suggest that discussing it, asking questions about
        it, is the responsibility of all (esp. Crowleyan)
        Thelemites.


        colette:
        #># and they clearly condemn those that actually do the work.

        I'm not sure that this is true, btw. more often the Work,
        per se, is either not recognized as such, misunderstood
        as some kind of narcissistic promotion, or misplaced as
        worthless in favour of a zealous bauble. assessing other
        people's process and work is usually a distraction.

        # THAT SOUNDS LIKE ONE OF THOSE DAMNED CROWLEY SPECIFICS
        # THAT POP UP EVERYWHERE i.e all magicians are thieves,
        # which is a catch-all for his corrupt activities and
        # to hide the fact that he was a heroin dependent, A SLAVE!

        that's an imperative point in understanding the man. his
        writing, say his fans, can be separated from his person.
        we must then ask what he might have known about will and
        its freedom/liberation if he was so enslaved. have not
        slaves sometimes written about the value of freedom?
        would they necessarily know about the means to obtain it?

        #> that is their prerogative, since it is entirely
        #> questionable what benefit such work yields.
        #
        # Another one of those "agree completely" statements
        # however if ya don't try then you are simply stuck
        # with the damned hypothesis of some "sucker" i.e.
        # the orphanage of crying baby (college of cardinals)
        # where we find the earth is flat and that if you
        # leave the area where the church can extort money
        # from you then you are going off into this evil
        # realm or fall [off] the earth.

        I barely understand this, but i think i get the gist.
        you're quite correct that to re-invent the wheel is
        to risk falling into the pitfalls of all previous
        students who were on their own without guidance. that
        said, it strikes me as comparable danger to the usual
        pitfalls which accompany typical modern religious
        (and many elder religious in modern guise) instruction.

        the briars become thick with sycophancy and hero-worship.
        the meat of the Work, as you seem to be pointing toward
        it, is lost for the chaff of distraction and narcissism.

        it helps to focus upon what 'the Work' is supposed to
        include in its original context (alchemy), get a clear
        notion of upon what the processes are presumed to be
        working (spirit), and thence pay specific attention
        to the means by which these processes are actualized
        (mysticism, whether in magical character or otherwise),
        as well as the results any engaging them may obtain.

        333
        nagasiva@...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.